Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Privacy Security The Internet News Your Rights Online

Hacker Behind Leaked Nude Celebrity Photos Gets 10 Years 346

Posted by timothy
from the what-would-justice-be? dept.
wiredmikey writes "A U.S. judge sentenced a computer hacker to 10 years in prison on Monday for breaking into the email accounts of celebrities and stealing private photos. The hacker accessed the personal email accounts and devices of stars including Scarlett Johansson, Christina Aguilera and Renee Olstead, among dozens of other people he hacked. The hackers arrest in October 2011 stemmed from an 11-month investigation into the hacking of over 50 entertainment industry names, many of them young female stars. Hacked pictures of Johansson showed her in a state of undress in a domestic setting. Aguilera's computer was hacked in December 2010, when racy photos of her also hit the Internet. Mila Kunis' cell phone was hacked in September that year with photos of her, including one in a bathtub, spread online. According to the FBI, the hacker used open-source, public information to try to guess a celebrity's email password, and then would breach the account."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hacker Behind Leaked Nude Celebrity Photos Gets 10 Years

Comments Filter:
  • by suso (153703) * on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @02:03PM (#42327667) Homepage Journal

    What is Open Source information? The OSI foundation doesn't seem to be doing a good job of enforcing the trademark of the term Open Source. I hear and see it used in many ways in which it should not be and the term has been grossly eroded in meaning over the past decade.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @02:07PM (#42327705)

      Pretty standard term.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_intelligence

      • by Synerg1y (2169962)
        Agreed, it's w/e knowledge is available in the public domain that you can use to gather intelligence with, I've heard of people tracing spam emails back to origin and accumulating information on the spammer with OSI. There's a lot of grey here too like sites that offer you lookup information for a fee, but are available to anyone.

        One thing I can't seem to wrap my head around is how did he figure out passwords from the public domain? So say I'm known by syn, but I set my password to syn24, OSI has nothin
    • by bsDaemon (87307) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @02:09PM (#42327727)

      Trademarks are domain-specific, like how actual windows can still be called windows and Microsoft can't sue over Windows. The use of the term "open source" for intelligence information (OSINT) is as old as dirt and is used to differentiate between sources such as news papers/party organs/etc and information attained through clandestine means, either human intelligence (HUMINT) or signals intelligence (SIGINT). Nothing to get upset about. It's not like the article said he used "the well known, open-source hacker tool Linux..."

      • by suso (153703) *

        Ok, thanks for the explanation and wasn't aware that the term open source information had such a long history. Still, the term open source gets used in ways that it probably shouldn't be in relation to software.

      • by nschubach (922175)

        I'm sure you'd still be in court for calling your new deodorant "Mountain Dew"

        • by Trepidity (597)

          Yeah, there's a separate set of doctrines around "famous marks" [inta.org], which may have protection in all domains. So you can't call your new operating system Coca-Cola OS unless it's actually approved/licensed by Coke, despite that company not currently having any interest in the OS market.

      • It's open-source, not Open Source.
         
        Which is a good argument to capitalize it if you want to own a piece of that phase.

    • by ShanghaiBill (739463) * on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @02:12PM (#42327769)

      What is Open Source information? The OSI foundation doesn't seem to be doing a good job of enforcing the trademark of the term Open Source

      "Open source" simply means something that was openly published and available to the public. The term has been in use for at least a century. The OSI foundation has no trademark on the term.

      That fact that this guy got the info from open sources doesn't make it okay. If I find your key under your doormat, that was stupid of you, but it doesn't make it okay for me to rob you. This jerk got what he deserves.

    • It means he's been reading books by Eric Raymond and RMS in a non-proprietary e-reader format.
  • Really? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @02:04PM (#42327671)

    Pics or it didn't happen.

    • by steelfood (895457)

      If there ever was a story where the pictures are worth more than any amount of words, this would be it. I'd go as far as to say that this would otherwise be a non-story if there are no pictures.

    • he should have posted them to Instagram [slashdot.org]. /rimshot
    • I thought those pic were leaked on purpose by the VIP public relations, to keep the names floating around in the media.

      But maybe this is part of the game :)

    • 617 [xkcd.com], frame 2.

  • Wake up call (Score:4, Insightful)

    by davydagger (2566757) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @02:05PM (#42327691)
    "According to the FBI, the hacker used open-source, public information to try to guess a celebrity's email password, and then would breach the account."

    Further proof celebs are fucking dumb. This guy wasn't a "real hacker".

    I don't know what is more disgusting, celebrities themselves, or psycho brand of psychonphants they attract.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dav1dc (2662425)

      I agree - is it still considered a "hack" when all the attacker did was guess the password from common (public domain) knowledge??

      I don't think it changes the degree of wrong in his actions - but in this light we shouldn't revel in the miraculous technical innovations used to snipe some celeb p0Rn.

      • by seepho (1959226) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @02:24PM (#42327943)

        is it still considered a "hack" when all the attacker did was guess the password from common (public domain) knowledge??

        Yes, much like a golf cart is still considered a vehicle.

      • by rtaylor (70602)

        Yes.

        It's still breaking and entering even if the door is wide open.

        • Re:Wake up call (Score:4, Insightful)

          by TheCarp (96830) <sjcNO@SPAMcarpanet.net> on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @03:30PM (#42328859) Homepage

          Yes but.... if he broke into her home, stole physical photos, and released them.... most people would easily consider it as much, if not more, of a violation.... but would he ever face nearly the jail time for that as he did for this? I doubt it strongly.

          Now, that isn't condoning what he did, clearly he was wrong, hell, I even called into question whether that FBI dad who tracked down the pedophile principal had overstepped ethical bounds by reading the reports in the first place. However, the punishment, if there is to be one, should not be out of proportion with the crime....

          This puts him away not just longer than someone who commited a nearly identical crime by different means, it puts him away longer than many violent criminals who actually physically harmed people.

          Hell, he will likely do more time than Whitey.

          • Re:Wake up call (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Tsingi (870990) <graham DOT rick AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @03:44PM (#42329065)

            Yes but.... if he broke into her home, stole physical photos, and released them.... most people would easily consider it as much, if not more, of a violation.... but would he ever face nearly the jail time for that as he did for this? I doubt it strongly.

            10 years is a fucking joke. Bankers destroyed the world economy and no one, except Iceland, charged any of them. There is no justice.

    • by gstoddart (321705)

      Further proof celebs are fucking dumb. This guy wasn't a "real hacker".

      Well, he'll be going to a real prison with real criminals -- Slashdot's whinging about what is a hacker, a cracker, or a script kiddie is irrelevant.

      He's hardly a criminal mastermind, but what he did was still illegal.

      • Re:Wake up call (Score:5, Interesting)

        by SternisheFan (2529412) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @02:39PM (#42328149)

        Further proof celebs are fucking dumb. This guy wasn't a "real hacker".

        Well, he'll be going to a real prison with real criminals -- Slashdot's whinging about what is a hacker, a cracker, or a script kiddie is irrelevant.

        He's hardly a criminal mastermind, but what he did was still illegal.

        As illegal as breaking and entering into someone's home and stealing photos from a bedroom safe. Good to hear that the court system sees hacking for the serious crime it really is. Someone with a talent for computing shouldn't be given free license to break into someone elses devices and steal, and then provide some lame 'War Games' "it was just some innocent hacking" defense. 10 years will give him time to wonder if maybe he shouldn't play like some kind of untouchable omnipotent God at a keyboard. I look forward to hearing of more tough sentences in the future.

        • Re:Wake up call (Score:5, Insightful)

          by stdarg (456557) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @02:51PM (#42328311)

          As illegal as breaking and entering into someone's home and stealing photos from a bedroom safe

          I don't think it's as illegal as that. If someone breaks into your home and goes into your bedroom, that's scary not just because they stole your photos or money, but they could have easily run into someone and had to decide -- do I attack this person, do I turn this burglary into a rape, do I leave witnesses, etc.

          I just looked up common sentences for burglary, and found an article that discusses burglary laws in New York (http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/burglary-penalties-and-sentencing.html ). As I suspected, the main differences between degrees of burglary are whether it was a dwelling where someone lives and whether a weapon was involved. Both combined is first degree. One or the other is second degree. Neither (breaking into a store for instance) is third degree with a maximum sentence of 7 years. Hacking a phone should be the LEAST serious of any of those, really a fourth degree.

          The reality is that hacking isn't that bad.

          • Re:Wake up call (Score:5, Informative)

            by DrgnDancer (137700) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @03:07PM (#42328533) Homepage

            You are correct. The article states that he could have gotten 121 years if he'd been convicted on all 26 counts he was indited for. Real world third degree burglary adds up too when you've broken into a couple dozen stores. If the information in the article is correct, it looks like the average maximum sentence for each indictment is around 4.5 years, so 2.5 years less than you say for third degree burglary. It's just that he did it lots and lots of times. Sounds like he got off pretty easy, about 3 months per count.

          • The reality is that hacking isn't that bad.

            Hacking isn't bad. Malevolent hacking is bad. When I was growing up my grandmother, bless her saint-like soul, taught me about right and wrong. She used to take me and my sister for walks and point out the various caterpillars and other insects, show us how to tell time by the position of the sun, how to make butter, all that crap. On one walk we happened to see a beautiful custom '71 Camero with the key in the ignition, and no one else around. I said "Geeze g'ma, some one could just drive off with that bea

        • by locopuyo (1433631)
          I think it is more like opening someone's snail mail box and photocopying all of their incoming and outgoing mail which included dirty pictures. Illegal, but not nearly as bad as breaking into a house and stealing items.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Alphadecay27 (1277022)
            The article states that he stalked two non-celebrities for more than 10 years. It's a lot more creepy than just some guy wanting to see celebrity boobies.
          • Yes, exactly. We can't compare this to breaking into someone's "home". In the case of Mila Kunis and her cellphone, maybe. But if you're breaking into, say, hotmail servers by guessing a password, that is more apt to trying to pick a lock on a locker in a public place, like a train station. It's still theft, but it sounds much less serious than actually breaking into a residence.
    • Re:Wake up call (Score:4, Insightful)

      by WD (96061) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @02:44PM (#42328219)
      I don't think the quote is right. The technique used to gain access is not to guess the password, but to guess the answers to the password recovery questions. The password itself can be strong, but when you've got a site that provides recovery questions like "Where were you born?", what are we to do? The clever approach would be to have an answer scheme that isn't guessable via public knowledge, but also something you can remember if you need to use it. There's a difference between "fucking dumb" and not being aware of weaknesses in web service authentication schemes.
      • Re:Wake up call (Score:4, Interesting)

        by rk (6314) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @03:07PM (#42328523) Journal

        I have a made-up narrative for an alter ego where I know all the answers to those questions (e.g., what's your mother's maiden name?) and I use those answers instead of the real ones. So you can do all the research you want on me, and you'll get wrong answers for those questions. But I'm weird that way... :-)

      • by ArhcAngel (247594)
        Many of the sites I deal with have those questions as well. The difference being if you answer them correctly they send a link to my email address on file. So unless you have already hacked my email (and made sure my phone isn't receiving email) then you still can't access my accounts.
    • Re:Wake up call (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pclminion (145572) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @02:48PM (#42328271)

      Further proof celebs are fucking dumb. This guy wasn't a "real hacker".

      On the contrary, guessing a password is a truly classic hack. What is more of a "real hack" from your perspective? Downloading and running a cracking script? To guess a person's password from information publicly available about them is a prime example of security-oriented thinking.

      The best hacks are tailored precisely to the circumstances.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "Illegal wiretapping gave Mr. Chaney access to every email sent to more than four dozen victims, and allowed him to view their most personal information," said US Attorney Andre Birotte Jr.

      Gosh that sounds a lot like, "Illegal wiretapping gave the federal government access to every email sent to more than forty million victims, and allowed them to view their most personal information." Nobody went down for that one, though.

    • Further proof celebs are fucking dumb.

      Oh for real Sherlock? You mean high-social-value individuals were fucking idiots for taking nudes and racy images of themselves when they know there are literally millions of people that want them... I think they should of given the guy a slap on the wrist as a warning against being a fucking moron.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @02:08PM (#42327709)

    did Rupert Murdoch and his son get?

  • by jdray (645332) * on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @02:09PM (#42327723) Homepage Journal

    I'm not quite clear why anyone thinks that putting things online in any capacity is safe from prying eyes, particularly if they're a celebrity. I don't defend the actions of these "hackers" (pfft), but the photo owners should be smart enough to take some precautions or find someone that can help them do it.

    • I'm not quite clear why anyone thinks that putting things online in any capacity is safe from prying eyes, particularly if they're a celebrity. I don't defend the actions of these "hackers" (pfft), but the photo owners should be smart enough to take some precautions or find someone that can help them do it.

      People who aren't tech-savvy shouldn't get damaged because of it. Would you want your grandmother to have her social security money to get stolen from her, then tell her she deserves what she got? "Shoulda' been bhind a firewall Gramma! That'll learn you!" Sheesh!

    • by SirGarlon (845873) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @03:08PM (#42328555)

      Stop blaming the victim. I've heard this so often, I'm finally going to snap. (Nothing personal.)

      Make up your mind whether IT administration is easy or hard.

      If it's easy, then the IT profession is perpetrating a massive scam and collecting fat paychecks for what is basically an easy job. I don't believe that, and I do not think you will find many people on Slashdot who support that position.

      On the other hand, if IT is hard, then it's not fair to condemn non-professionals from being unable to do it. Rather than calling people "stupid" for not knowing things that we take for granted, we could actually try to promote public awareness and give people constructive advice.

  • by jdastrup (1075795) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @02:10PM (#42327731)
    10 years is a ridiculous amount of time to be in prison for something like this. Child molesters and murderers get less time.
    • he got additional years for being stupid. He should've known that in this society (and just about every society), crimes committed against the rich and famous are punished far more severely than crimes committed against the riffraff.

      Even the gangbangers know this, they prey on lowly people in their own ghettos most of the time.

    • Ten years seems excessive, yes, but I'm sure he'll get out in a couple years or so if he's a non-violent inmate. Read more about what he did... it's quite a laundry list of abhorrent behavior.
    • 10 years is a ridiculous amount of time to be in prison for something like this. Child molesters and murderers get less time.

      Child molesters and murders get less time because their sentences are reduced on appeal, they get time off for good behavior, or they are released early by parole boards or to reduce overcrowding. The same will happen to this guy. It is unlikely that he will be in the slammer for more than two or three years, and likely even less than that.

      This is actually a good system, because the headlines show the initial (phoney) sentence, which has a deterrent value by scaring other potential perps, but we don't act

      • by TheCarp (96830)

        > This is actually a good system, because the headlines show the
        > initial (phoney) sentence, which has a deterrent value by scaring
        > other potential perps, but we don't actually incur the expense of
        > imprisoning them for anywhere near that long.

        Hmmm in theory anyway. In practice, there is evidence that harsh sentances do not actually translate into significant deterrance.

        A much stronger effect is seen by increasing the percieved likelyhood of gettin caught.

        An excellent book that talked of this w

    • I do agree that 10 years is already too much for the offence, but it is even worse. He pleaded guilty to get only 10 years. He could face 121 years. THAT is absurd.
      • by alen (225700)

        121 years if he was found guilty of every count and sentenced to serve consecutively. chances are the sentence would be concurrently for all counts and it would be a lot less

        • U.S. almost never does concurrent sentences.

        • Even if the 121 years would be unlikely they would still be possible with it is an absurd on its own, and it is reasonable to infer from his choice that a much greater sentence than 10 years was likely enough for him to accept the agreement and take 10 years.
    • by Sperbels (1008585) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @02:30PM (#42328021)
      Well, you see, Scarlett Johansson's ass is copyrighted. So the MPAA is probably setting the sentence.
    • by Zemran (3101)

      He should have burgled the houses, and raped the nannies while he was at it, to steal physical photos... He would have got less time. He could have even murdered a couple of guards and got less than 10 years.

      • by nschubach (922175)

        Well, he would have had to burgle many houses and probably killed/raped many nannies to get all the celebrity photos so I think as a serial rapist/murderer he might have seen more time.

    • by gstoddart (321705)

      10 years is a ridiculous amount of time to be in prison for something like this.

      Well, he could have been facing a lot worse.

      Chaney pleaded guilty in March, in a deal with prosecutors. He could have been jailed for up to 121 years if convicted on all 26 indictments he was originally charged with.

      It's a steep sentence, but I have no sympathy for him -- nor more than I would for spammers, con-artists, or crooked politicians.

      It's not like he could be under any illusion what he was doing was ever legal.

    • I don't know about your state but here it is pretty lengthy. Second degree murder has sentences that range from 10-20 years provided it is an isolated offence. If you already have convictions of certain types, it can be 25 years, or more. First degree murder is a life sentence or the death penalty. In cases of life, sometimes parole can be allowed, but not before 25 years and then it is still discretionary.

      Something else you seem to forget is that he is charged of multiple crimes. You don't get to lump cri

      • by dissy (172727)

        It looks like the multiple charges (26 specifically) totaled up to 121 years of prison time.
        That would require 5x 1st degree murders in your state to bring the minimum 25 years up to that amount, or 6-12x 2nd degree murders for the same.

        He plead guilty to avoid getting the entire 121 years total, in exchange for serving only 10 years for all counts combined.

        So if you use the time sentenced on a per-charge basis then that comes to a little over 4.5 years of prison per charge, which is in fact less than what

    • Child molesters and murderers will get more time if their victims are famous or rich.

      If the victims are not connected or wealthy, then Child molesters and murderers get a slap or are ignored.

    • by couchslug (175151)

      OTOH its a nice way to remind other people to stay the fuck out of systems which do NOT BELONG TO THEM.

      • No, it sounds like a nice way to remind people that the rich, famous, and well-connected are exempt from the rules of life. These celebrities know that their naked photos are high sought after and in some cases worth millions -- so why do they not taken the most basic precautions, like encryption? For most of us "little people," insurance policies won't pay out if we don't lock our doors -- why makes these celebrities so special that they should play by a different set of rules?
    • by nbauman (624611)

      I thought so too until I read this:

      http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Hollywood+hacker+that+posted+nude+photos+Scarlett+Johansson+sentenced+Monday/7708693/story.html [vancouversun.com]

      Chaney also targeted two women he knew, sending nude pictures of one former co-worker to her father.

      The women, who both knew Chaney, said their lives have been irreparably damaged by his actions. One has anxiety and panic attacks; the other is depressed and paranoid. Both say Chaney was calculated, cruel and creepy.

      When I hear movie and modeling celebrities giving these long stories about how their lives have been destroyed by having nude photos made public on the internet, I wonder whether that's what the district attorney told them they'd have to say to get a conviction. After all, how many of those celebrities would pose nude for Playboy or Vogue at a time when it would be good for their career?

      However, distributing nude pictures of co-workers, who are private persons, is somethin

    • by westlake (615356)

      10 years is a ridiculous amount of time to be in prison for something like this. Child molesters and murderers get less time.

      The geek's white collar crimes are likely to land him in a federal criminal court, This is never good news, because white collar crimes are a federal criminal court's bread and butter and the judge will have heard every lame excuse for mercy the geek has to make.

      Punishment for Murder - Federal - Mandatory Sentencing

      Second degree murder

      Imprisonment for life or any term

      Second degree murder by an inmate, even escaped, serving a life sentence

      Life imprisonment

      First degree murder

      Death or life imprisonment

      Military - Mandatory Sentencing

      Murder under UCMJ Article 118 Clause (2) or (3)

      Any legal punishment (other than death) as directed by the court-martial

      Murder under UCMJ Article 118 Clause (1) or (4)

      Death or life imprisonment

      Murder (United States law) [wikipedia.org]

  • Pics (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    or it didn't happen...

    Defense rests your honor.

  • by RichMan (8097) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @02:12PM (#42327761)

    Why does it seem there is one set of rules for the little people and another set for big business?

    "HSBC executives brushed off complaints from other bank employees, so that the problems persisted for eight years, the report says.

    In addition, some HSBC bank affiliates skirted U.S. government bans against financial transactions with Iran and other countries, according to the report. And HSBC’s U.S. division provided money and banking services to some banks in Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh believed to have helped fund Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, the report said."

    http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1227431--hsbc-laundered-billions-of-dollars-for-mexican-drug-cartels-senate-investigation-finds [thestar.com]

    "The penalty includes a five-year agreement with the US department of justice under which the bank will install an independent monitor to assess reformed internal controls. The bank's top executives will defer part of their bonuses for the whole of the five-year period, while bonuses have been clawed back from a number of former and current executives, including those in the US directly involved at the time."

  • by larry bagina (561269) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @02:15PM (#42327807) Journal
    These celebrities should open source their privates and make money by selling support contracts.
  • U.S. is crazy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fredprado (2569351) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @02:16PM (#42327825)
    Seriously. The guy did deserve to go to jail, but 121 years?!!! And he pleaded guilty to get "just" 10 years? It is no surprise U.S. prisons are full and U.S. has the highest number of prisoners per capita in the World...
    • Our justice system only works (for certain definitions of "works") because we threaten insane sentences to force less-insane plea bargains.

      We can't afford to have more than a tiny number of cases go to trial, or the system would break down. Not enough money, not enough judges, not enough lawyers.

      • The collateral effect is that many people will accept the bargains even if they are innocent, because not doing it is risking too much.
    • by theNetImp (190602)

      Each hack is a different crime. Each crime has a minimum sentence. The rest is math. Most countries are no different.

      • Most countries don't add multiple sentences to be served sequentially in this way. Furthermore most countries have a maximum total time for sentences. Here in Brazil, for example, it is 30 years. 121 years in prison is basically a death sentence, and in many ways it is even worse than it.
    • Seriously. The guy did deserve to go to jail, but 121 years?!!! And he pleaded guilty to get "just" 10 years? It is no surprise U.S. prisons are full and U.S. has the highest number of prisoners per capita in the World...

      Maybe he shouldn't have been doing things that are clearly illegal, without much question creepy, and doing these things to "high profile" people to boot?

      Perhaps society should be protected from creeps this fucking stupid?

      Also, keep in mind:

      The indictments against him included accessing and damaging computers, wire tapping and identify theft.

      ...So we're not talking about just a few celebrity nudes.

      He then allegedly communicated directly with contacts found in the hacked email account's address list and searched the account for photos, information and other data.

      To control the account, Chaney is alleged to have altered the email's account settings to go to a separate, unrelated e-mail address that he controlled.

      After gaining complete access to the hacked account, Chaney then used the contact list to "harvest" new targets, according to the FBI.

      Just a little "innocent" hacking of "rich people" who should have known better?

      And, keep in mind that if he wasn't already doing credit card theft, it was probably in his "script kiddie" queue.

      • He may be a creep and, as I said, I think he deserves to be punished for it, but 10 years is too much time, no matter how you look at it. 121 years, on the other hand, is simply absurd and it is too much for ANY crime.
  • The idiot he should of just laundered money for al-qaeda.
  • Because this really seems like the elite beating down a serf for daring to see the princess naked.
  • by JustNiz (692889) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @02:41PM (#42328161)

    I consider the real sickness here is the wierdness that is the mind of apparently most Hollywood stars.
    I mean why do they apparently all carry nude pictures of themselves on their phones? Especially even knowing that phones can be hacked.
    I can smell the Paris Hilton effect in action.... There is no such thing as bad publicity.

    • by BMOC (2478408)
      The sickness is called "Ego", it's incurable, and they all have it. Worse still, they have invented an infection path via reality television which they use to spread this epidemic of narcissism to the rest of the planet
    • "I mean why do they apparently all carry nude pictures of themselves on their phones?"

      Because they hope the phone will be "hacked" and the pictures posted online, thereby generating a great deal of publicity for them.

  • by Cito (1725214) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @02:59PM (#42328423) Homepage

    most sites have these watermarked or censored with black bars

    http://goo.gl/xFwzF [goo.gl]
    http://goo.gl/T97ZZ [goo.gl]

  • by pseudorand (603231) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @03:38PM (#42328985)

    Is it just me, or is it somewhat strange that these celebrities would have naked photos of themselves in their e-mail in the first place? I know I don't have any naked photos of myself in my gmail account, and I'm not even someone everyone wants to see naked. If you were a young, female celebrity who knew everyone wanted to see you naked, wouldn't you think twice before a) taking a naked picture of yourself and b) e-mailing it to anyone.

    Or maybe I'm just a prude who doesn't know how to put his cell phone camera to good use.

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.

Working...